TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

The General US Politics Thread

Go To

Nov 2023 Mod notice:


There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.

If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines before posting here.

Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.

If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules when posting here.


In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.

Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM

Lawyerdude Citizen from my secret moon base Since: Jan, 2001
Citizen
#48326: Jan 27th 2013 at 2:03:40 PM

Here's a breakdown of the IRS's restrictions on political activities by tax-exempt organizations: Link

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.
GameGuruGG Vampire Hunter from Castlevania (Before Recorded History)
Vampire Hunter
#48327: Jan 27th 2013 at 2:04:38 PM

@Greenmantle: As far as monetary support goes, churches tend to set up non-religious not-for-profits to lobby and fund candidates. It's never a church funding a candidate directly.

As far as preaching from the pulpit goes, churches have freedom of speech just as much as anything else.

Wizard Needs Food Badly
DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#48328: Jan 27th 2013 at 2:07:46 PM

It would impose a financial sanction for holding or expressing certain beliefs. No different than fining somebody for expressing the "wrong" idea, or requiring that Christians pay less taxes than non-Christians.

First off, the church would get the tax exemption not the Christians who use it.

Secondly, under this logic NPR's and PBS' tax exemptions are also violations of the freedom of expression. No different than requiring that people who listen to private broadcasting pay less taxes than those that listen to public broadcasting.

Thirdly the Freedom of expression is the right to express one's ideas and opinions freely through speech, writing, and other forms of communication. I still don't see how that is being violated.

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#48329: Jan 27th 2013 at 2:10:45 PM

It's still a violation of the establishment cause to not tax churches.

Lawyerdude Citizen from my secret moon base Since: Jan, 2001
Citizen
#48330: Jan 27th 2013 at 2:18:15 PM

Secondly, under this logic NPR's and PBS' tax exemptions are also violations of the freedom of expression. No different than requiring that people who listen to private broadcasting pay less taxes than those that listen to public broadcasting.

What? NPR and PBS are funded by a combination of public money and private donations. I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#48331: Jan 27th 2013 at 2:33:01 PM

What have I done...

Okay I'm going to try and change topics. This showed up in a local newspaper. Thoughts?

Bluesqueak Since: Jan, 2010
#48332: Jan 27th 2013 at 2:42:12 PM

The Establishment Clause means that the US govt may not pick and choose either between religions, or between religions and non-religions. Therefore, if PBS etc are allowed to be non-profit 'social good' tax exempt organisations, religions have to be allowed to be non-profit 'social good' tax exempt organisations.

Steering a path between 'odd beliefs I don't subscribe to' and 'there is no way that's a religion' is somewhat problematic, but I will point out that (so far) the US has not had a Civil War that was about which religion to go for.

Given Europe's history, James Madison may have been on to something...

It ain't over 'till the ring hits the lava.
deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#48333: Jan 27th 2013 at 2:59:18 PM

And things like PBS have to demonstrate they're doing social good, while churches have to demonstrate they're churches. If churches want to be tax exempt, they should have to follow the same procedure as other charities to show they're deserving of being tax exempt. They shouldn't be tax exempt because they are churches, though. I mean, an atheist organization can't claim tax exemption for being an atheist organization, but a theist organization can claim tax exemption for being a theist organization. That's a clear violation of the establishment clause.

Trivialis Since: Oct, 2011
#48334: Jan 27th 2013 at 3:07:46 PM

I don't mind atheist organizations being similarly tax-exempt. But they have to be up front about promoting atheism as a philosophy that you can believe in, like a religion, and not hide behind some other label.

Bluesqueak Since: Jan, 2010
#48335: Jan 27th 2013 at 3:22:42 PM

[up][up]actually, no.

Literary organisations also don't have to prove 'social good'. Scientific organisations get tax exempt status for being, well, scientific. I believe trade unions are also tax exempt? And chambers of commerce. Social clubs - which certainly don't have to prove any social good beyond providing pleasure and recreation. Fraternities, if they give any profits to charity.

Discriminating against a non-profit social grouping on the grounds that it is religious is a violation of the Establishment Clause. It is favouring non-religion over religion.

Incidentally, as a matter of terminology, Jainism, the core of Buddhism and certain paths in Hinduism are all non-theistic. Christian Atheism has been referred to above. 'Theism' does not equal 'religion'

edited 27th Jan '13 3:23:27 PM by Bluesqueak

It ain't over 'till the ring hits the lava.
Trivialis Since: Oct, 2011
#48336: Jan 27th 2013 at 3:26:05 PM

Those groups are not atheists, though. They're nonreligious. They're not the same.

If you have an explicit atheist philosophy advocacy group, or some organization under that banner, then it should be treated as a religion. Unlike the aforementioned groups, atheist philosophy groups would actually take a stance on religion.

edited 27th Jan '13 3:27:32 PM by Trivialis

Bluesqueak Since: Jan, 2010
#48337: Jan 27th 2013 at 3:38:29 PM

[up]I'd be fine with that, personally. The problem is usually the atheists - who have a bit of a tendency to quite vehemently insist that they're not a religion. wink

It ain't over 'till the ring hits the lava.
Ultrayellow Unchanging Avatar. Since: Dec, 2010
Unchanging Avatar.
#48338: Jan 27th 2013 at 4:13:00 PM

Perhaps you could allow them to exempt themselves from the exemption.

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.
thatguythere47 Since: Jul, 2010
#48339: Jan 27th 2013 at 7:49:26 PM

Atheist, as in without theism. Not believing in religion is about as far as you can get from religion. Although I find the idea that philosophy =religion to be an interesting idea.

Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?
Trivialis Since: Oct, 2011
#48340: Jan 27th 2013 at 7:59:41 PM

Yes, but because the 1st amendment allows you to not have a religion, actively having a stance on religion (by atheism) should be considered a religious stance. A nonreligious institute would require a neutral stance that doesn't actively seek out against religion.

Zendervai Since: Oct, 2009
#48342: Jan 27th 2013 at 8:28:52 PM

This a pattern my mom noticed about American politics. The politicians do their job for two years, then their election campaigns start up again and suck up all their focus.

Pykrete NOT THE BEES from Viridian Forest Since: Sep, 2009
NOT THE BEES
#48343: Jan 27th 2013 at 8:32:18 PM

So in other words, it's Christmas Syndrome, but over a four-year span instead of one.

Ultrayellow Unchanging Avatar. Since: Dec, 2010
Unchanging Avatar.
#48344: Jan 27th 2013 at 8:33:44 PM

Unfortunately it's not a pattern, it's an escalating trend. The start of campaign season has been moving steadily back for ages now.

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.
Lawyerdude Citizen from my secret moon base Since: Jan, 2001
Citizen
#48345: Jan 27th 2013 at 8:39:24 PM

It feels like the campaign season lasts for two years. So if you're a member of a two-year house, you spend half your time after election campaigning for re-election. Of course, since Congress has an over 90% retention rate, campaigning is largely redundant anyway. They're really just spending time away from Washington fundraising.

edited 27th Jan '13 8:41:25 PM by Lawyerdude

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.
Euodiachloris Since: Oct, 2010
#48346: Jan 27th 2013 at 8:56:30 PM

[up]And, legally enforced caps on campaign war-chests is a bad thing how, again? tongue

AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#48347: Jan 27th 2013 at 9:02:31 PM

I'd say we'd have to put legal time restrictions on things like presidential campaigning, but I don't think that would get all that much traction.

RavenWilder Since: Apr, 2009
#48348: Jan 27th 2013 at 9:07:08 PM

This is just a thought, but what if we had politicians take oaths of poverty? That is, when they get elected, they must give up all their material goods, move into government housing, and live off a small government stipend. Anytime they go outside, they'd have to be accompanied by government agents who ensure that they don't receive or enjoy anything worth more than a few dollars. And this would continue for the rest of their lives, even after they leave office.

Sounds pretty extreme, I know, but demanding a big sacrifice from politicians as proof of their altruistic intentions seems like it could have value.

Ultrayellow Unchanging Avatar. Since: Dec, 2010
Unchanging Avatar.
#48349: Jan 27th 2013 at 9:13:46 PM

Thing is, guess who would have to vote to approve that...

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.
DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#48350: Jan 27th 2013 at 9:19:18 PM

That is, when they get elected, they must give up all their material goods, move into government housing, and live off a small government stipend

Would they be living together? Because if, so then there will be blood.

EDIT: Also a lot of Senators are old; they need medicine and stuff.

edited 27th Jan '13 9:22:57 PM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016

Total posts: 417,856
Top